------=_NextPart_000_0052_01C57267.DFB1B310 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The ring of four to which Dickon refers is Newnham, and interesting set wit= h three medieval London bells and the other an 18thC Whitechapel bell. A ni= ce-sounding ring but hard work. They were 'sanctified' by having a quarter = rung on them - the first on minimus in Kent, on 13th January 1961 by the fo= llowing gentlemen: Peter Newing, Keith J. Triplow, David L Cawley and John = C Baldwin. ~An engagement compliment to JCB. The subsequent oprdination of = we four persons has no apparent connection with the Quarter. For full details see http://kent.lovesguide.com/newnham.htm which is illust= rated by a remarkable picture of the church with an ancient vehicle outside= , which I hasten to assure list members is not JCB's car! Not having seen the tower for about 30 years now, I cannot comment on itas = safety; but I was asked to make representations for the CCC against the rec= orded bells system, which was already in. I argued that as the bells existe= d and could at least still be safely chimed, there was no reason for "suppl= ementing the existing bells with a recorded bell system" as it was euphamis= tically put. That was not to say that I considered the bells could still safely be rung = full circle, and any queries on that should properly be addressed to the Ca= nterbury Diocesan Adviser on Bells.=20 DLC ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Anne Willis=20 To: bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com=20 Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:35 AM Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Re: alternative to bells The playing of bell recordings from loudspeakers is actually illegal=20 in the Canterbury Diocese. One church put speakers in rather than have=20 their ring of 4 rung. The architect picked up on this and obliged them=20 to seek a retrospective faculty. It was only granted for a particular=20 period on the proviso that the church did something about getting its=20 bells repaired. Alas nothing has happened. DrL It's very much frowned upon in Salisbury Diocese, but I'm not sure if it'= s illegal. I think Wootton Rivers used a recording for a time, but they d= o now have proper bells. Anne ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bellhistorians/ =20=20=20=20=20=20 b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: bellhistorians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com =20=20=20=20=20=20 c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service= .=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0052_01C57267.DFB1B310 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The ring of four to which Dickon refers is= Newnham,=20 and interesting set with three medieval London bells and the other an 18thC= =20 Whitechapel bell. A nice-sounding ring but hard work. They were 'sanctified= ' by=20 having a quarter rung on them - the first on minimus in Kent, on 13th Janua= ry=20 1961 by the following gentlemen: Peter Newing, Keith J. Triplow, David L Ca= wley=20 and John C Baldwin. ~An engagement compliment to JCB. The subsequent oprdin= ation=20 of we four persons has no apparent connection with the Quarter.
 
For full details see http://kent.lovesguide.com/= newnham.htm which=20 is illustrated by a remarkable picture of the church with an ancient vehicl= e=20 outside, which I hasten to assure list members is not JCB's car!
 
Not having seen the tower for about 30 yea= rs now, I=20 cannot comment on itas safety; but I was asked to make representations for = the=20 CCC against the recorded bells system, which was already in. I argued that = as=20 the bells existed and could at least still be safely chimed, there was= no=20 reason for "supplementing the existing bells with a recorded bell system" a= s it=20 was euphamistically put.
 
That was not to say that I considered the = bells=20 could still safely be rung full circle, and any queries on that should prop= erly=20 be addressed to the Canterbury Diocesan Adviser on Bells. 
 
DLC
 
----- Original Message -----
Fro= m:=20 Anne Wil= lis=20
To: bellhistorians@yahoogroups= .com=20
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:35= =20 AM
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Re:= =20 alternative to bells



The playing of bell recordings from loudspeake= rs is=20 actually illegal
in the Canterbury Diocese. One church put speakers i= n=20 rather than have
their ring of 4 rung. The architect picked up on thi= s and=20 obliged them
to seek a retrospective faculty. It was only granted for= a=20 particular
period on the proviso that the church did something about= =20 getting its
bells repaired. Alas nothing has=20 happened.


DrL


It's very much frowned upon in Salisb= ury=20 Diocese, but I'm not sure if it's
illegal.   I think Wootton= =20 Rivers used a recording for a time, but they do
now have proper=20 bells.

Anne



 ------=_NextPart_000_0052_01C57267.DFB1B310--